readings for 4/21/08

Blog for readings for 4/21/08 I don't seem to be able to get these posted sooner. I keep trying.

Brandt Sponsors of Literacy

Brandt illustrates the principle of literacy sponsorship through the life experiences of several individuals. She identifies literacy as a commodity. “…one of the great engines of profit and competitive advantage in the 20^th century: a lubricant for consumer desire; a means of integrating corporate markets; a foundation for the development of weapons and other technology; a raw material in the mass production of information”(p 166).

Her essay is an attempt to offer a conceptual approach to the development of literacy as an economic development (p.166) (emphasis mine), the value of literacy and the factors that influence or motivate the individual to seek it, which she has labeled “sponsorship”. Sponsors, as Brandt calls them, are any “agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach or model as well as recruit, regulate, or withhold literacy- and gain advantage by it” (p 168). She sees sponsorship as the causes into which people’s literacy get recruited, the why and how they learn to read and write and, get exploited (p.168).

In this essay, Brandt looks at concepts of literacy development through the experiences of various individuals and demonstrates the patterns of sponsorship to the processes of stratification, competition and reappropriation (p.183). Her discussion of the literacy learning experiences of Raymond Branch and Dora Lopez demonstrates the concept of stratification. Although these two individuals were from the same era, area and educational opportunity their access to literacy was very different. Brandt compares the difference of majority-race membership, male gender and affluent socioeconomic status and learning literacy access to that of the minority-race membership, female gender and lower socioeconomic status and their acquisition of literacy for their personal self development. It is no surprise that Branch, who is a white male and comes from a higher socioeconomic back ground, was surrounded by literacy and easily accessed higher education and upper management employment. Lopez had to teach herself, had less access to instruction and learning tools. For Branch, the University town met his literacy needs, but for Lopez, it id not. Her literacy talents in two languages did not gain her the same advantages as Branch. This illustrates that there is, as Brandt states, a statistical correlation between high literacy achievement and higher socioeconomic, majority-race status (p.171).

In the next section, Brandt illustrates how sponsorship through competition effects literacy achievement. The life of Dwayne Lowery, a union representative, was changed by the increasing demands of higher levels of literacy from his opposition. Over time simple negotiations became more complex as the level of communication involved more legal and elaborate forms of literacy - reading and writing. Although Mr. Lowery met these demands through self-education, he was eventually replaced by someone younger, educated and certified in the field of contract negotiation. His literacy talents were devalued inspire of his seasoned experience. The sponsorship, in this case, controlled and inhibited his literacy value through competition.

The last example demonstrates how two different women experienced changes in their lives by reappropriating the literacy learning they achieved in their professional lives. They each, in different way and for different reasons used the skills they had acquired on their jobs and learned to use them in others aspects of their lives. In this way they managed to redirect the value of their literacy talents to more personally rewarding endeavors.

Finally, Ms Brandt looks at teaching and the dynamics of sponsorship. As teachers of reading and writing, she eludes to being brokers between literacy buyers and sellers; Teaching learners how to negotiate their literacy talents. She states that when one’s sponsors are multiple and, sometimes, at odds, they can make writing difficult, but if absent writing is unlikely.

My thoughts:

Brandt’s article was an enlightening aspect of motivation for writing. We have discussed much about discourse communities and this puts a different spin on that concept. I found her essay to be concrete, cohesive and stayed to the point. It was the easiest for me to understand, that we have read, thus far. I cannot analyze her theory as I do not have the theoretical expertise but find her concept interesting and I think well supported by her examples. Not the best “science” but she makes her point.

I can identify with the individuals that she features in their sponsorship for self-development. I can see how my own literacy acquisition was influenced by the need to learn and develop the literacy skills for the academic and professional discourse communities that I was entering. I feel that this is, also, what she was discussing. As a woman who entered academia later than most, I also felt the disadvantages of not being a traditional student. Fortunately, I had the sponsorship of organizations that valued women reentering the job force and a profession in high demand and understaffed.

I think we all, in some way, reappropriate the literacy skills we learn in one area to other areas of our lives to increase the value of our literacy skills or improve the economy or personal reward. We need to teach this. The teaching of reading and writing, in economic terms, seems to indicate that teachers need to understand the motivation (or sponsorship) of their students and the purpose of their learning and how to navigate and negotiate these influences. In the essay by McCarthy we see that the student did not know how to reappropriate his talents.

McCarthy A stranger in strange Lands

This article seems to be a demonstration of what we have discussed in class about audience, discourse community and the technology of writing. McCarthy followed this student as he figured out his audience, primarily his teachers, learned “what they wanted” from him and the appropriate language and format of each assignment as it applied to each class/course. Also, the concept of motivation or sponsorship from the Brandt article is illustrated. The student did better in the classes he felt had greater application to his life and future, Biology and English. He was motivated to write for his English class because he felt it helped him learn to write for his biology class which was his goal. He could not, unfortunately relate his general knowledge of writing to each of his classes, but saw them as entirely separate entities. He was able to relate the purpose of writing to his success in the class and to future classes, and for the purpose of communicating with the teacher and fellow students.

His difficulty with the poetry class is a reflection on the value he placed on what the class could offer him. Also, was the negative criticism from the teacher, who offered little in the way of correcting his mistakes. Dave’s contributions, on which he spent many hours, were not valued by the teacher, who was the “expert” and Dave the novice. He was not made to feel like he could ever achieve any higher status, whereas, in his other classes, he was given avenues for solutions, and treated like a peer. His contributions were valued and encouraged. Therefore he did better, he was more motivated. He learned to use the language of each discipline and the unique techniques and formats required.

This essay reflected strongly with the Brandt essay. We read and write for reasons that are important to us, even if we do not really want to. (sponsorship) We learn to use the language and techniques required of the discourse community in which we want to be accepted. ( writing across curriculum/discipline). We need to fell successful and valued in order to succeed or achieve a goal.

This essay was, again, easier to understand, straightforward and applicable to the concepts we have been studying. I guess I am a concrete reader. I don’t elate well to the writers that refer to other theorist in a more abstract way.

I think the author illustrated her point well and applied it to a teaching concept, which, for me, is important. How do we teach people to write (or succeed in their learning).

Heath Protean shapes in Literacy Events: …..

I had to look up the concept of “Protean Shapes”. I am not sure I understand it yet. Heath discusses the way people learn about their language and writing from their culture and demonstrates her theory of learning to read and write as a social phenomenon. By illustrating the many uses of the language of the people in Trackston, she shows how oral language differs from written language in both form and uses. I believe this is an example of how language appears to change when viewed from outside vs. inside and written vs. oral. It occurred to me as I read this piece, that there is so very much that is understood in unspoken language as well as visual comprehension that is not available or is more difficult to convey in written language. The author must go a long way to portray a scene that can be absorbed visually, without words or emotions that can be expressed by tone of voice or facial expression. Heath discusses this very early in her essay “the language of oral tradition is held to suggest meaning without explicitly stating information….In contrast, language associated with the literature tradition is portrayed as making meaning explicit in the text and as not relying on the experiences of readers for verification of truth value.” (p.443-44) I was not sure why I had to read the entire dialogue if the prayer, except to see how the use of the language changed with the emotion of the speaker, but it was an effective illustration of orality of language as culture.

This essay is another example of the value of both written and oral language as it applies to the every day lives of the people in a social group. They learn from each other, as children, what is important in the language, how to use it appropriately depending in the need and circumstances. As adults, they learn the meaning of aspects of the language from the experience of others, who will then pass that on.

I agree with Heath that language, both written and oral are social, cultural and only has meaning when it can be applied to or by the need of the individual or society in which they want to be accepted. The inequities of social language are also demonstrated in the use of forms that are read to applicants in some of the occupations Heath discusses. I felt this reflects back to McCarthy and the student. Why should these people learn to use reading and writing skills if they are not valued, seen as being able to contribute or treated like peers in their contexts? Are the employers using a different social language from the cultural or social group of the community, or does it appear different from the perspective of the individual and from the business. Do they each apply different meaning to the same language? It may be easier to get through the process, but it does not give credence or dignity to the people within that community.

Hull Hearing other voices….

Hull’s essay discusses the aspect of literacy in the work place. What constitutes literacy and how does being illiterate or literate affect the employee’s ability to function? She looks at various types of employment and some of the popular theories about the failure of the business or economy being the fault of the illiterate employees. As she proceeds through the essay to dispel this popular myth, I immediately thought of how many industries have outsourced their businesses to foreign countries or imported foreign workers. How does that support the idea that being able to read and write effectively in the business makes or break the business? This article really speaks about learning and using language and what is important to the individual. When the author is relating the experience of the supervisors sending memos on housekeeping tips to people that had been doing the job for years, they were insulted (not given credence for their experience or valued) The tips did not help them improve how they did their job nor apply to what they felt was important (getting a GED). The author illustrates how instituting group work did not work because the employees were not given any instruction on how to change their social structure or make the concept work. They needed to have some idea of how this was supposed to work, by modeling or being trained by others preferably peers that had been successful. But these concepts were not known at the time of this article. I also, got the impression that the concept of learning literacy as being important to one’s future and useful to ones goals needs to be developed from the earliest education. It became very clear in this article that, as often happens, students do not pay attention or learn what they cannot see a purpose in. (such as Dave). People learn what they need to, when they need it. When exposed to higher levels of literacy, it is taken for granted. For those that are not exposed to it or feel they do not need it or cannot use it, it may not be learned. I guess this falls under positive constructionist theory in that people bring with them their experiences into new learning situations. I would add to that “as they think they need them” ( as seen by our student, Dave) and the bank employees.

I see this article as another example of literacy being a sociocultural phenomenon. Language is symbolic and contextual, both written and oral. Most of us are able to move among more than one language group (or discourse community) and we will not learn or understand those that hold no meaning for us. Had I not had a need for this class (I signed up for it) I would not have learned any of the language of this discipline. Like a language of another country, I feel I am not fluently literate in it, but I can understand some of it. If I find I need it in my future, I will continue to learn how to use the language of English theorists (why did this font change?)

blog for reading for 4/4/08

Readings for 4/14/08

These reading were all about the technology for writing and the technology of writing.

Some of the authors had great insight into the future of IT and computers.

The first article by Sullivan explored the “possible impact of publishing the visual page on writers, readers, classroom and curricular theories”. She identifies how the writing theorists at the time of her article had not embraced the computer. She reiterates their reservations and their advocacy. Some felt it was a “helpmate” others, like Ong, who felt that technology constantly remakes the way we communicate and even, think” (p 45). Some felt that computer composition was a threat to writing theory and pedagogy (p 46). I would say to that, not a threat, just a required change, like any new science or evidence. Technology has always changed society and how things are done. Consider how the invention of printing changed writing.

I liked how the author discussed the extra work of the writer. Word production has always been separated from word publication. Now the writer must deal with how the words on the page impact the meaning of the words. I thought about poets and how they have often used the placement of the words on the page for emphasis of the meaning. The author points out that traditionally, the writer interacts with the manuscript and the readers never see the evolution of the text. Depending on the writer, the reader may be able to contribute to the development of the text, if the writer chooses to make it public. The writing teacher can “look over the shoulder” of the student and watch how they compose and revise (see Harris and Wambeam) and the students can even give each other feedback if allowed to post to a discussion board.

On one hand authors can have a say over the layout of their text, the illustrations etc., unless the publisher has specific guidelines they must follow. In which case, this sounds like cost saving strategies. The writer has the choice of doing the visual work themselves or hiring a visual editor and layout specialist, which is what the publisher has done, traditionally. The writer now has access to a wider audience that might not find their book in the bookstore, but can be invited to read their book through the internet.

The second article, by Harris and Wambeam showed that a decade ago, they were looking at the impact of distant education; the advantages, the importance of community and the outcomes. I wonder what they think of it now, that almost every University has an on-line or distance education program. We are communicating/ exchanging ideas and information thorough a written medium. Writing has become extremely important and the genre and discourse community wider and more diverse. This was expressed in previous article, even the first day. Again, has this study helped determine if writing is an art or a technique to facilitate communication? Does the language of the conversation help develop the talent of the writer, no matter how informal?

The introduction of “guests” or outsiders into the discussions (by MOOS) demonstrated the capacity to generate new discourse communities and open the students to exposure to alternative social groups. We have watched the Internet develop into this very thing: A place for groups to meet, converse, share, debate, date, play games, compete, or stalk each other.

I think their experiment benefited two concepts 1) connecting teaching strategies in writing with theoretical concepts through the writing exchange of the students via technology and 2) the use of the internet for teaching (any subject).

As they mentioned, the success of the communication was only as good as the technology. Consider how that technology has changed to improve the availability of faster communication. It is still subject to failure, though, as I experienced many times in my distance education program. I spent last semester in Indiana. They have a lot of storms in Indiana and my internet link was via a satellite which is dependent on a clear path for the signal. Clouds, waving trees and rain can interfere with that signal. Wires get damaged in storms. So, like phone lines, my internet access could go down anytime and it did.

Did I appreciate the effect this type of learning had on my writing? I can’t say that I did. I consider who will read my text, and revise as I write. I guess I remember my grammar instruction. I look for ways to make the meaning clear, as it cannot be clarified as easily as when spoken (in communication). I always felt I was writing to an audience, different from (but including) the teacher.

The article by McGee and Ericsson made me laugh at first, as I had made a comment on the blog from the previous week about the MSGC. I called it an “authoritarian dictator” that interferes with my right to free text. I threatened to sue Bill Gates. I agree with the authors that this technology has been introduced without consult or question. I understand that it was designed as a helper, but I resent its interference and insistence that I not use fragments. I can’t help it that there are incomplete phrases in my references. Another authoritarian dictator known as MLA and APA requires that I include punctuation in incomplete phrases. I sometimes use short, descriptive phrases for emphasis and I don’t want to have to explain to “HAL” why I chose them.

Anyway, I thought the article brought up some interesting and important points that the MSGC has never been challenged to its theoretical underpinnings or the authority of its designers. (Remember, the “authority” that decried the lack of good grammar in English students had no expertise in writing). The examples that they gave about the construct of passive to active voice was interesting. I wish it could recognize when I type form instead of from or they instead of then. It recognizes the incorrect spelling but not incorrect use of a correctly spelled word. (Except when it was stuck in Canadian English mode and corrected my American spelling.) The system was designed with voice recognition in mind. I think it is, also, designed for business as that is where students are headed.

The authors discuss best practices in teaching writing. Whether it is better to view writing as an ecological/sociological construct that is dynamic and constantly be created and recreated by readers, writers and teachers and is decidedly social. We know that society changes as the technology changes. It seems odd that the concept of traditional rhetoric is still considered the best practice; because it follows the formula for a discipline even thought the precepts of this method of teaching has been shown to be ineffective since the 1880’s. My point being that if the MSGC is designed to be like traditional rhetoric as the writers state “ concerned with the prescriptive use of language and surface concerns of style, then I have to agree, it is an ineffective tool that can confuse a novice writer or a student that is not fluent or secure with SAE. This is where I see its greatest threat.

I was not aware that the MSGC can be turned off or customized (except to language of a country). Who interpreted the dictionaries of these languages?

I think that the writers have a good point; overall, but they were somewhat caustic in their criticism. I wonder if they work for that fruit company that makes computers.

The article by Shaun Slattery reminded me of the article by Eilola and Selber in their discussion on assemblage. In this article the author discusses technical writing of a document development company. The technical writers have no content expertise and through communications with subject experts from the companies for whom the technical writers are writing, they “assemble” the technical documents from various sources, such as e-mails, previous documents and many other sources. They make the work sound daunting. The question is how much original writing of texts or composition takes place? Many people are responsible for the finished product. It is a collaborative effort, based on other people’s original work.

I was especially impressed with the workload and the ability of the writers to go between so many different sources of information and tolerate the amount of distraction described. I get frantic when my phone rings when I am in the process of writing something. I do, however, have several pages of text or other source information that I may navigate between when I am developing a piece of text for a class. Sometimes it is my own, from another project and sometimes it is a reference I am using for resource to the topic. I am not fluid doing this, but it is easier than writing out all the quotes or references.

The article looks at the division of labor in the assemblage of technical writing and cautions that this may relegate technical writers to an assembly line of document development rather than rhetorical text development by individual writers. They illustrate how the fragmentation of this work makes text development more difficult, but with how they describe the amount of information from which they piece their “puzzles” together, one person could not handle the volume of information and even a small group would have difficulty developing a cohesive product.

article on the development of community in online learning

It seems I have parallel topics in English and Nursing. I thought that in light of our current readings for the past two weeks, you might be interested in this article about community and collaborative learning. I thought it really validates what Harris and Wambeam demonstrated.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International
Vol. 42, No. 3, August 2005, pp. 217–230
ISSN 1470–3297 (print)/ISSN 1470–3300 (online)/05/030217–14
© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/01587910500167910
Strong community, deep learning: exploring
the link
Carole Chapman
*
, Leonie Ramondt and Glenn Smiley
Anglia Polytechnic University, UK


I will attach it in the discussion area for the class, since I did not want to post the entire article in the blog.

Patti W.

readings for 4/07/08

I posted this yesterday, but it apparently disappeared

Readings for 4/07/08

Ong – I think I got the gist of what Ong was saying (?) I felt like I was trying to read another language. I do not speak that formal Englishese. I understand that he is saying that writers are writing to an audience (as does everything else – Rhetoric) I also understand what he means by the audience has a role to play and it is up to the writer to direct the reader to know and accept that role. He implies that without that direction, the reader cannot interpret what the writer is saying or get the message of the story (in fiction). The readers must put themselves into the story; identify with the characters.

I am not sure why he went on so much about Hemmingway. I think this is an important concept, because freshman writers may not be aware or able to do this. This may be something that is necessary to teach, or demonstrate (as I believe Ong was trying to do with his examples of Hemmingway’s writing).

I liked Ong’s essays from these past two weeks; I just have a difficult time interpreting some of his words and language structure. (That’s what I get for being a Nurse. I can’t understand a neurology consult any better).

Porter –

I liked what Porter said about discourse communities restraining the writer and that the audience …”is as responsible for the production of the text as the writer” p.38).His discussion of the text and authorship of the Declaration of Independence, reminded me of other things I have read that had more than one author. Remembering how I could tell which author was speaking as the chapters unfolded, just by their writing style.

I have to agree with Porter that most, if not all discourse is built upon, and borrowed from the discourse of others, which he calls intertextuality. I believe that as, writers, speakers, we look for ways for our audience to identify with our speech or writing (rhetoric/discourse) and, therefore, we borrow “signs” or “tags” to other influential speakers or writers. As I have stated before, since I have entered into graduate education, I have discovered that there is “no original thought”. I don’t mean that to say that graduate students are not capable of original thought, just that at this level of scholarship, it is presumed that our opinions have been shaped by the theories or science of others and all of our opinions must be validated by their original source. (If they said it/wrote it – you must cite it.) We are products of our society, no matter how liberal, rebellious, or different we think we are; and we will speak and write from that influence and to that audience.

I like how Porter poses the questions concerning the exclusionary power of the discourse community; does the writer have any creative freedom? Or are writers doomed to plagiarisms?

If we look ahead to Johnson-Eilola and Selber on Assemblages, I asked my self Porter’s next question – Can any text be said to be new? Considering how the movie industry seems to be stuck on remakes, this essay seems to explain why.

I can’t help but be taken back to the beginning – Aristotle; he taught to speak to your audience. Now, as writers, we cannot see that audience, but we have to presume how the audience will think and in what discourse community they “live”. We have to use signs and logos and ethos they will understand (unconsciously) some logos are so ingrained into our society (or from past societies) as to be archetypal; they reach the very subconscious of understanding.

Bruffe -

I could identify with much of what Bruffe was talking about, in that I am in a computer-based learning program and it is all about collaborative learning. I think we collaborate within ourselves (i.e. talk to ourselves) before we write anything to anyone else. It seems to me that the concern of “one-mind” non-individual thinking (group think or “peer indoctrination” as Trimbur writes in Villanueva (p 462)), and has given way to collaborative, not necessarily consensual, writing and learning. In science, a “body” of researchers that never meet face-to-face is now doing many studies. They share their findings and collaborate on the interpretation of the meaning of the findings. They share the work and the credit and, I imagine, the criticism. Theories of collaborative learning are coming alive in the computer- based programs where students discuss their lessons with the teacher as a facilitator to that discussion.

He talks about normal and abnormal discourse and describes abnormal discourse as when discourse deviates from the accepted and expected “norms” of the discourse community. Consensus no longer exists. I like that he sees this as a way of shaking things up, of introducing a fresh or different perspective. Sometimes this is accepted and opens new avenues of thought and sometimes someone could get hurt!

Trimbur raised some interesting questions and points. I was enthusiastic about Bruffe’s discussion of collaborative learning, because I am experiencing this aspect of my education in teaching and Nursing. Then I read Trimbur and get all paranoid about loss of individuality. Then, I considered the dating of the essay. He discusses and debates the thoughts of various theorists, philosophers, sociologists and many others that had opinions on abnormal discourse, socialconstructionism and collaborative learning and consensus. (His essay is a great example of intertextuality. I wonder if he could have referenced any more writers on the subject).

Although science calls for some consensus by its very nature of proof and provability, it also changes over time. Therefore I agree with him (and his reference to Young) that…” students can learn to agree to disagree, but not because everyone has their own opinion…” (There would never be consensus on anything and then there would be real power struggles), but that students bring with them such diversity and they need to “organize the conditions in which we live and work accordingly” (p 476). He espouses a consensus that offers a way to allow for many voices in the collaborative classroom, without dominance or hierarchy. Here, Here and Hazah! He did call it a Utopian ideal, didn’t he?

The Johnson-Eilola & Selber article brings us much closer to the world of rhetoric, discourse and composition (if I may be so presumptuous with the term) that we live in today. How many people are “publishing” video excerpts of someone else’s work (or their own) on U-Tube? We see montages of music and video on cable stations of “remixed” work from a variety of artists and amateurs, alike. I alluded earlier to the remaking of movies. Is this the new form of discourse? It certainly seems to be the new “Genre d’Jour”. (I made that up). Is this “creativity or lack of creativity? I recently saw a movie directed and produced by Julie Taymor (of Broadway fame for Lion King) (sorry if I offended, I know her name is well known). Where she took the music of the Beatles and told a love story that was more like an anthology of the “Sixties”, called Across the Universe. I thought it was brilliant and poignant. (I almost feel like it is premonitory _ history repeats itself). Her interpretation of the music brought new meaning to the songs, or was it more of an expose’ of the real meanings Lennon and McCartney had in mind? Well, Like Ong, I think I have drifted from my point with this illustration. Is it really plagiarism to reinvent the meaning of someone else’s work? (I am sure that Ms. Taymor had full rights and cooperation of McCartney or whoever else owns the rights to the Beatles” music – Michael where are you?)

** My MS spell checker is an authoritarian dictator, inhibiting my ‘free-text” writing. I am suing Bill Gates for limiting my first amendment rights by not letting me use contractions and irregular verb forms!! Am I starting to sound like a liberal arts major?

readings for 3/31

I am really posting late this time, due to circumstances beyond my control - I had trouble understanding ONG!

Blog for 3/31/08 Eng 701

Ong describes literacy as an expected norm of human expression and thought (p.19-1). I always thought that it meant one could read and write in one’s culture. He espouses that we have integrated the skill of writing and ingrained it so deeply that we cannot separate it from ourselves or recognize how it influences our concepts of language and literacy. He discusses how written language is more totalic and externalized a foreign, manufactured product. He refers to Plato’s condemnation of writing as “destroying memory”, weakening the mind. I always thought that writing helps to remember – expending the files, making retrieval easier.

Ong uses the example of thinking abut words as”evanescent”. We cannot hear a word in our minds in its entirety, without hearing each syllable and losing the previous part of the word, like hearing a bar of music or a melody (20, p1). I have to visualize the syllables or sound the syllable of a word to be able to spell or write them. I have to make a word and “event” as he calls it to make it a “thing”.

Written text may be spatially and visually fixed and permanent (that is why we-in the modern world of distrust of memory and spoken – like it), but I disagree that it is dead. Written language can be descriptive enough to evoke emotions. Poetry can be abstract and yet touch the subconscious. He speaks to this later in the piece. Graphics can be symbolic enough to represent an entire concept, but require the reader (or recipient) to be literate in the language of the culture.

He is correct that the written text will outdistance us. It will be around, long after we are gone. Isn’t that why it was invented? To record history for posterity. Ong seems to be arguing for and against the technology of writing at the same time. He identifies numerous points on how writing separates or divides. He then says that writing ties together, many things.

His use of language certainly distances my understanding of what he is trying to say. I get the gist of what he is saying, but the diction and syntax he uses makes reading his essays very difficult. Of all the compositions we have read for this class, Ong is by far the most difficult to understand. His way of writing reminds me of an exercise we did in high school English. For example, I could say “Scintillate, Scintillate, asteroid minific”, this is correct English; but it would be so much easier to understand if I said “Twinkle, twinkle, little star!

Distributed Cognition at work is a discussion of the purpose of writing and a demonstration of responsive writing vs. collaborative writing. The article points out that distributed cognition is not the same in the university as it is in the working world and He states that it should be called “socially shared knowledge” instead. Although the teacher will share knowledge with the students and the class, as a whole, shares the goal of successful learning. The acquisition of that knowledge may not be equal among the students and the students are more stratified in their success. The teacher shares the goal of success for the students, but achieves that goal in a different way.

His comparative discussion of economy and the corporate social structure and navigation of a ship as discursive was (for me) a little confusing. They both have their own culture, language, guiding policies and goals. I would argue, though, (not that it has anything to do with distributed cognition) that the social structures that establishes the monetary policies of the Bank of Canada, which stabilizes the economy of the country, could change, as the social structure changes.

In this composition by Diaz et al, they are discussing the theory of distributed cognition in the context of these two social structures (ships and banks) which have their various genres, both oral and written, expected language, and social stratification. In the corporate world, each member has a role and purpose and contributes to the communications within that social structure, each from their own level. Unlike the classroom where each student contributes to the knowledge of the class, but overall, do not contribute to the success or failure of the class, as a whole, or the University – if the student drops-out. I would argue this point that the students are the reason the University exists and their retention is the bread and butter (not to mention salaries) of the institution.

As I read this piece, I found myself saying “get to the point” The concept of cognitive discourse and distributed cognition may be applicable as a tool of analysis of structural genres in the real world, it doesn’t contribute to my understanding of methods of writing.

The Flower and Hayes essay discusses the processes that go into writing or composing as a series of decisions and choices. They look at the “stage model” of writing (prewriting, writing, and revision) developed by theorists to explore the process of development of composition. An attempt to discover what goes on in the mind of the writer.

Flower and Hayes have developed a different model that rests on four key points:

1. The process of writing is best understood as a set of distinct thinking processes which writers orchestrate or organize during the writing process.
2. These processes have a hierarchical, highly embedded organization in which any given process can be embedded within any other.
3. The act of composing itself is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer’s own growing network of goals.
4. Writers create their own goals in two key ways: by generating both high level goals and supporting sub-goals which embody the writers developing sense of purpose, and then at times, by changing major goals or even establishing entirely new ones based on what ahs been learned in the act of writing.

I wrote these out to help myself understand their model as they explain it. In all of these essays about the process of writing it always seems like the authors or theorists are trying to establish what comes first (the chicken or the egg?)?

In order to understand where planning or goals setting comes in it is necessary to establish where decisions about language and grammar come in. Is this part of planning or is it part of revision?

I like the model they present because it allows for many “loops” in the process of writing. As Flower and Hayes put it: “A process that is hierarchical and admits many embedded sub-processes is powerful because it is flexible…” (285). the model seems more circular in its concept.

I believe each step of the process has its own goals. The essay offers a model that gives a good sense of goal-directed writing which illustrates how the process of writing occurs. Their use of the actual thought processes of the writers they studied helped develop this theory and, I presume, will help guide the teaching of writing through “process theory”. The problem with this article and the model seems to be the fact that they did not apply it to “student writers” and As Patricia Bizzell points out they didn’t take into account the interpretive conventions of the audience. As much as I had tremendous difficulty reading Ong’s essays, I read his essay on “The Audience Is Always Fiction” several weeks ago and I agree that, the writer must have an idea how the audience will interpret the writing and put themselves into the role of the audience. Which means the writer is making assumptions of the audience that an inexperienced writer may not know how to do. Flower and Hayes do not address this. As Bizzel also points out they have some circular arguments in the defense of their theory. She also mentions that although development of a “scientific theory” would lend credibility to “Discourse/composition studies” in the University community, as long as we are trying to create theory from human thinking, we need to be cautious about excluding the student’s own discourse community while socializing them to the academic discourse community. I cannot see how any one theory can take into account all the aspects that go into expressing ones ideas, whether orally or written. I appreciate Bizzel’s comments about the many ways that composition studies could be investigated.

reading for 3/24

Sorry for the last minute posting.

Reading blog for 3/24/08

This week’s (or last week’s) readings were very identifiable to me. Or should I say, I identified with the concepts, in that I fell like a remedial or, basic writing student. When Shaughnessy talks about her four staged scale, I had to chuckle, because I think I experienced that first stage the first day of class. Isn’t that what Dr.J. was doing when he invited me to drop the class. Me, the only non-English major. Me, the outsider, a science (or Nursing) major. He was “Guarding the Tower”.

I do agree with Ms. Shaughnessy, that it isn’t just the student that needs to, or will change. Teachers are as much affected by their experience with their students and what does or does not work for the students as the students are affected by their experience with the teacher. The student has to learn what the teacher expects from him/her and what to expect from the teacher. Likewise, the teacher has to learn what they can expect from the student. The teacher also must remember that the student has some level of knowledge. I believe it isn’t entirely what they don’t know, but what they do. What they don’t know seems to be how to use what they know, correctly, and how to develop and advance that knowledge and incorporate new knowledge. Shaughnessy seems to be saying that the teacher needs to assess where the student is in knowing language and where he, himself is in knowing writing and language, and begin from there. To develop an approach to teaching writing that puts more emphasis on content than structure and work the meaning of the writing into the student and not the method. The teacher needs to be willing to develop and change himself if he is to develop the student.

I can understand how people like Bartholomae. He is easy to understand, at least, for me, his style of writing is comprehendible. I didn’t have to have a dictionary handy to look up terms that I had never heard before. This brings me to, what I felt, was the point of this essay. He is giving students credit for their attempts at academic discourse even when they don’t know the “language” of that discourse. The student has to assume an authority or privilege that he has not acquired, but makes an attempt to connect with that audience. He notes that writers (inexperienced) will write about their experience with the topic and then try to incorporate the language of the discourse that is needed to pose as member of that community. The essays he discusses “give evidence that the writers are trying to write their way into a new community” (645).

I understand this concept because I have had to write (without being taught how) in the discourse of the nursing community. Sometimes I was the authority, and wrote about topics I knew well and in the language I had mastered. At other times, like, for my graduate studies, as Bartholomae stated, I was aware that something different was required and I mimicked the style and tone and language of other writers in that discipline or level. I did not really understand the discourse, but in making the attempt, learning to take on the role can occur; learning to write from within a specific discourse’. Thinking like English major or a nursing researcher.

Rose’s essays were reminiscent of the learning theory and neurobiology classes I have had in my journey to be an educator. Have there not been any new learning theories on language acquisition and behavioral development since the ‘30’s and 40’s. Piaget’s theories ended with adolescents (males, by the way) and we do have some new theories on adult learning. Rose describes the theories of Witkin on field-dependence and field- independence and a person’s ability to think (and I presume write) abstractly or concretely. I found myself comparing my own abilities with these theories. The trouble with these theories is that I see characteristics from both categories in my thinking and writing. I have to agree with Rose, these theories have their limits and contradictions.

Then he begins a discussion on literacy. I believe he ultimately concludes that the concepts of literacy and cognition are very complex and researchers and theoreticians need to consider carefully all the implications of social influences, dynamic processes and situational dimensions when researching and developing teaching frameworks for composition.

Literacy has always been an uncomfortable concept for me, probably because I see the limitations of the term. One short example; thinking back to the development of the Western Frontier… the native Americans that were hired (used – hired implies payment) as guides for the European explorers could not read or write, therefore they were considered illiterate, but they could read tracks from animals, they could read weather patterns in the sky, they could navigate by the stars, they could communicate by smoke. Who were the illiterate ones? Wasn’t it the Europeans, since this was the society of the Native Americans? I guess this is what is meant by codes- symbolic cues to a language (?)

The second essay by Rose, Language of exclusion had me back with the discussion from Harvard. The students are coming in to the university setting so unprepared that in order to have them capable of writing for the academy we must “remediate” or reteach them. Is English a skill (the use of the language?) And why is the writing course considered the remediation by which the student will “relearn” how to use the English language. (I think it demonstrates that one learns composition by writing).

Why does that make the writing class lower in status within the University?

Here are my thoughts on English as a skill and writing as remediation from the perspective of nursing as a course of education. If a student comes into the University to study nursing (it could be medicine, or biology or other science, I using my frame of reference) It is acknowledged that the student will have had some study in biology and other natural sciences, of a basic level. They are not “retaught” but, rather, expanded upon. The first semester nursing student is not expected to have the knowledge, understanding or skills as a third semester nursing student. Nursing requires “a set of skills” as well as knowledge and the ability it apply that knowledge. Critical thinking needs to be nurtured, and developed in the student nurse. At the end of the educational experience, the student is expected to be able to pass a test that certifies that the student has the knowledge, skills and capacity to think like a nurse. All of the classes in nursing school are stratified and build on one another; even fundamental classes are not considered to be lower in status, but necessary to the continuation of the student through the other classes. They are ALL considered in the nursing department.

My question is why can’t writing and composition be considered stratified, taught in a progressive manner and incorporated throughout the educational goal of a degree in English? Is it, perhaps that a degree in English is so content laden, that writing and composition take up too much time and have to be considered “outside” of English? Perhaps a restructuring of what is really required for a degree in English is what is needed. No easy task. Nursing and Medicine have had the same dilemma for decades. But they have not disowned any of their components. (Nutrition could be the exception) Again, a fundamental component of health and wellness and recovery, Nutrition has become a discipline unto itself. Perhaps that is the argument and I am not seeing it? Where do composition and writing want to be in the university curriculum? Part of or separate from English? Another discipline or adjunct to an English degree. What am I missing here?

annotated bibloiography

Annotated bibliography for English 701

Patricia Waters-Decker

March 20, 2008

I have chosen to compare the scientific discourse of Florence Nightingale with her personal writings and, also with her contemporaries, other women science writers of her time.
This was a difficult project for me, as I discovered that there was a need to look at the sociology of that time as well and I have never written this type of Bibliography before. I have more references, but we were only required to provide 6-8.

1. Benjamin, Marina, Editor. “Science and Sensibility: Gender and scientific Enquiry, 1780 – 1945”. Basil Blackwell. Oxford, UK. 1991.

This book is a compilation of chapters by various authors, distinguished in their disciplines as Biologists, Chemists, philosophers and Historians. Ms. Benjamin is an author of several articles on the history of science and women.

This book raises the questions and investigates 1) the relationship between the sexes and how they “became enshrined as natural laws”? 2) How were gender relations scientized? And 3) how can feminists interpret the relationship, actual and symbolic? (p.2)

The chapters give an historical perspective of the many influences on the sciences, politics, gender relations and the ascribed roles of men and women in Victorian society (1870) to post war 1945. It is divided into three parts:

1) Women practitioners of science

2) Gender representation in science

3) Science and feminism.

Ms. Benjamin acknowledges that, in 1991, “the relevance of the natural sciences to major issues of concern with women’s history has only recently been recognized” (p 23). Science has its roots in patriarchy and women in science have been overlooked by historians and feminist scholars alike. The existing literature of the time concerned itself with the sociology of women in science, not their contributions to the fields.

Historians like Margaret Rossiter (p.3) looked at the struggles and strategies of survival of women scientists in America. Her work reviews the gender stratification; the difficulties women face gaining access to education and training in science and the prejudices they face when they succeed. Her work reveals the special survival strategies these women had to develop because of their transgression of traditional female boundaries.

The chapter titled “Women, Medicine and Sanitary Reform I had hoped, would be the focus of my interest in this book, since this is where Florence Nightingale made her mark, but, by the author’s direct admission “There will be one major omission, the work of Florence Nightingale. Albeit she is now generally associated with nursing …But while she was by far the most successful woman in sanitary reform in Victorian Britain, she was quite exceptional in working… in the male areas of engineering and government administration. Her sanitary work really demands a chapter of its own.”(p 63). So I examined the rest of the book to find some very pertinent coverage of the area on male dominance of science, women’s perceived role in science (more as subject and objects for investigation and most of their contributions marginalized). Darwinism perceived the female brain as being too small and unevolved to accommodate the concepts of logic, problem solving and reasoning, but only evolved sufficiently to reproduce and nurture.

I felt it was important to understand the viewpoint of the Victorian era on science, women and women in science to be able to understand the writing of Florence Nightingale. Her position in her world was influenced by her society, her religious beliefs and her family, all of which she defied. I want to look at the various publications she wrote to see how they differed from the norms of her times and if they differed from each other, based on her “audience” or genre.

2. Gates, Barbara and Ann Shteir. (Eds). “Natural Eloquence: Women reinscribe science”. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin. 1997.

This is another collection of essays by authors and distinguished Professors of English, Teaching and Research, Humanities, Geology, Women’s studies; Literature and Linguistics form various Universities and Colleges around the world. This book discusses the popularization of science and the writings of women in science to bring science, in their vernacular, to audiences beyond the elite and learned cultures. The editors acknowledge that the “Women question in science” and the “science question in feminism” have caused the writing of women in popularization of science to be overlooked. In recent years, feminist researchers on women, gender, and the history of women and science have amassed evidence to document ways in which gendered thinking about women and science has limited access to scientific cultures (p 4).

This book acknowledges the contributions of some of the same authors from my first reference, but I found, that Ms. Gates and Ms. Shteir have tapped into essays that reveal how the women writers managed to “get around” some of the negative opinion of society involving women science writers. They did not write for publication in the scientific journals, but rather to the public. By writing, in periodicals, to the uninformed, women and children, staying within the realms of “natural sciences and religiosity, they managed to make popular science writing an accepted profession. (I think it was because they were not trying to compete with men).

Stephan Jay Gould writes, in chapter 2, about the “Invisible Woman”. He begins with his experience of reading a revised (and official) version of the history of twentieth Century Russia, which excludes Joseph Stalin. He cannot conceive how, even if they didn’t agree with his politics and/ or exploits they could simply ignore that he ever existed. This is how he feels history has been written about cultural evolution – to the complete exclusion of women, making them invisible. Until recently (1904), women were not admitted to scientific societies. Even then they played subsidiary roles. “Women with scientific interests were therefore confined to a narrow range of marginal activities, away from (or at least auxiliary to) the centers of prestige and innovation in research and publishing (p.29).

The book goes on to include the works of many women writers of the 1800s and 1900s. Florence Nightingale is not mentioned in this book, but I feel that, again, by understanding the attitudes of the society of her time, and the writings of some of her contemporaries, I will better understand her writings.

3. McDonald, Lynn; editor. “Florence Nightingale on Society and Politics, Philosophy, Science, Education and Literature: Volume 5 of the Collected works of Florence Nightingale.” Wilfred Lauriel University Press. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 2003.

This volume incorporates a collection of letters, publications, and manuscripts written by Florence Nightingale from a total of over 150 archives, and private collections world wide. Many of the writings and letters related to the topics in the title are accompanied by introduction from the editor, Ms. Nightingale’s contemporaries and mentors. The introduction to this volume chronicles her life and work and introduces one of her earliest mentors of statistics, L.A.J. Quetelet.

The Editor acknowledges that “roughly one quarter of this volume deals with the Nightingale/ Quetelet connection either directly using his work or, at least, how she was influenced by him” (p.11). In this volume many of her notes and accompanying statistics are used to exemplify how she developed her theories and how she attempted to utilize Quetelet’s methodology.

Letters from friends and mentors are included and with some of her diary entries and letters to others, we are given an in depth look into the thinking and working of Florence Nightingale. The final chapter of this book talks about her extensive library and love of literature. Her letters often quote from various pieces or offer recommendations for the reading of one or another of her favorites. She did not read that she did not take/make notes.

Ms. Nightingale was a prolific writer and correspondent. She wrote about everything with which she was associated. She made copies of all her personal correspondences and careful volumes of her publications and left them to the executors of her estate, presumably to be destroyed after her death. How could she have know that her every thought and word would be memorialized by historians, biographers and feminist writers 100 years in the future?

4. Bullough, Vern, Bonnie Bullough and Marietta Stanton, Editors. “Florence Nightingale and her Era: A collection of new scholarship”. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York, N.Y. 1990.

This book is a result of a multidisciplinary conference (date not given) at the University of Buffalo, which was designed to bring together Nurse researchers, biographers and other writers exploring the life and work of Florence Nightingale, the role of women and the development of nursing from 1850- 1910. The work presented at the conference was so impressive that the developers invited all the presenters to submit their presentations for publication. This is a compilation of some of those works.

The presenters offered a multidimensional view of the life and times of Ms. Nightingale and this book offers an even more intimate look into the private life of Ms. Nightingale – Flo-to her friends. Contrary to popular opinion, nursing was not her main effort in her post-Crimean life. The authors note that she was “not only a self-sacrificing heroine, but a manipulative, often erratic, and dedicated woman who spent a great deal of the last sixty years of her life in bed, from where she could control the people in her life”.

To my surprise, modern nursing was not developed with Ms. Nightingale’s direct input, but rather, influenced by her ideas and concepts which were carried on by those that came after her. Nightingale’s focus was on sanitation, the moral character of nurses and their education rather than training. (Emphasis mine). Although, she argued against “medical lectures’ as disruptive to their main purpose, to care and advocate for the patient. She felt an emphasis on physiology would make them “assistant Doctors”.

It is through her correspondences that we get this portrait of a woman staunchly independent, encouraged by her mentors and peers, and yet influenced by Victorian principles of submissiveness, domesticity, piety and purity, which, according to Janet Bryant and Kathleen Colling in their chapter, Broken wills and tender hearts: Religious ideology and the trained nurse in nineteenth century, remain with us today (p. 164).

I liked this book because of the alternative view and diverse opinion of the authors on the life of Ms. Nightingale who could be as sharp and caustic with her colleagues and benefactors as she could be with her underlings.

This book also gives us a look at the development of educational programs for women in the colleges and universities of America. I found the writings reflective of the histories we have been studying on the changing attitudes and methodologies of teaching in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century America.

5. Vincinus, Martha and Bea Nergaard, editors. “Ever Yours, Florence Nightingale: Selected Letters”. 1990. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.

This compilation of letters and correspondences gives another intimate look and author’s interpretation of the life of Florence Nightingale. It is not so much a compilation of essays of various authors (as many of the other references are) as it is a compilation of selected letters and correspondences with historical and editorial commentary illustrating various aspects or historical accounts of Ms. Nightingale’s life (and thoughts about her life). It is another view into her life and is somewhat repetitious. I will most likely use this reference to compare her writing to friends with writings to professionals or government officials. Some of the other resources have more extensive writing to her professional colleagues.

6. About.com http://www.about.com/ retrieved from the Internet 3.15.08. is a web site – directory that I retrieved from the internet when I googled Florence Nightingale. Among many topics, the website provides many pages and references to Florence Nightingale and other noteworthy women in nursing. The page I was interested in is on Women’s rights as seen through the eyes of Florence Nightingale. (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/nightingale/a/fn_womens_right.htm)

The page opens with a quote from one of her Ms Nightingale’s publications on Nursing: Notes on nursing, what it is and what it is not. (1888). I have requested this publication from the Lied Library as they do not have it in their publication list, it will come from another lending library. Another page that may be part of my final paper, http://womenshistory.about.com/cs/nightingale/a/nightingale_san.htm which is from the writings of the Western Sanitation Commission of 1874 on Ms Nightingales’ influence on the sanitation situation on America, at that time.

Generally this website provides access to various publications and articles on Florence Nightingale and links to other websites about her and her writings, as well as other writers on the same topics. I will use this website as a resource for references on nineteenth century female authors on scientific discourse. (as it applies to my topic) I have yet to fully explore the various links to publication of other contemporaries of Ms. Nightingale and will do so, if I find I need them for my paper. I am not very adept in navigating these types of websites and often get distracted from my original search.

7. Shuttelworth, Sally, Gowan Dawson, Richard Noakes; “Women, Science and Culture: Science in the Nineteenth-Century Periodical” Women: A Cultural Review 12.1 (2001). Website accessed: 22 Mar. 2008.

http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/09574040110034129

This article is a discussion of the discoveries of women writers of the nineteenth century in “periodicals” and the development, in this journal, of an index to these periodicals. As the author points out “Women writers, like the majority of men, would usually have gained their understanding of evolution, or other major scientific issues, not from primary texts, but from discussions in periodicals”(p. 58). This was one of the ways that women could write about scientific topics and their understanding without recourse from the scientific community. In fact some of the male scientists [of the time] wrote about their findings in Periodicals before they submitted to their professional journals. This was alluded to in my second reference as one of the strategies that women found to write about their interests in Science. They could disguise their scientific knowledge in “fictional” stories or stories for children or popular domestic topics for women of the time. By not trying to publish in the scientific journals, they avoided the backlash of the male writers of those publications.

By examining the popular cartoon periodical “Punch”, an espoused misogynist and “wife-beater”, the author is surprised to find that some of the writings are supportive of women in the roles of Physicians and Nurses. Celebrating the works of Florence Nightingale and offering “backhanded’ compliments for the acquisition of medical degrees of Elizabeth Blackwell and Emily Davies; declaring that a physician for a wife is a “treasure indeed” since she would attend to her husband in sickness and save him the expenses of attendance by a physician on his
ignorant, hypochondriacal wife (p.60). This is the type of reference I was looking for to gain more insight to 19^th century writing and discourse. I will most likely use this resource to guide my analysis of the writings of Ms. Nightingale as they compare to other popular writers of that time.

8. Skinner, C. "The Purity of Truth: Nineteenth-Century American Women Physicians Write About Delicate Topics.” Rhetoric Review, 26(2), 103-119. (2007). 20 Mar, 2008.

Author Carolyn Skinner has discovered thirty-six advice texts and pamphlets written between 1847 and 1902, which she has reviewed to show that the women science writers used this means to communicate delicate topics and maintain “respectability” and femininity (p.102). By identifying with wives and mothers, these American Women Physicians maintained their femininity; also, by framing their advice for the health of the family, which as women, they were aught to do. By writing “advice texts”, rather than scientific texts, they connected with a much wider audience. By associating health with morality they could model ways in which to pass information on sex, sexuality and reproduction (delicate topics) to women and adolescents and not damage their reputations (p.117). Physicians- writers like Alice B. Stockham, Elizabeth Blackwell, Emma Drake and Mary Allen-Wood were able to reach a much wider audience than they would have if they presented their knowledge by giving lectures on a tour circuit and they would have incurred the wrath of the male physicians that saw this as their domain of teaching (103-04). According to Ms. Skinner, “The popularity of advice texts written by women physicians suggests that they constitute a significant body of rhetoric composed by women at this time, a body of texts with important implications for how we think of Nineteenth-century women rhetors and, by extension, of women writing science today (104).

I chose this article as an example of scientific discourse of American Women in medicine. By writing in this genre, women physicians had more influence on the discourse of scientific writing than they would have in addressing a professional audience. Their influence on women and families gave them the authority to advise and direct the health of the community and promote their own professionalism. This article provides an example of cross-cultural discourse in scientific writing to compare with the writings of Florence Nightingale and her European contemporaries.